Couple’s Baby ‘Legally’ Stolen by CPS

In modern-day America, parental rights arebeing systematically compromised by domineeringgovernment bureaucrats who believethey alone have the authority to determine what’s best for the health and welfare of achild. Alex and Anna Nikolayev of Sacramento,California, recently learned this the hard way after their five-month-old son Sammy was abducted by police and Child Protective Services(CPS) simply because the couple wanted to get a second opinion on their baby’s medical condition, a heart murmur.

The Nikolayevs’ troubles began when they tooktheir son to a local hospital to be examined for flusymptoms. The parents became distressed whenstaff administered antibiotics that could have complicated the boy’s pre-existing heart condition.

After a few days in the hospital’s pediatric unit, doctors recommended Sammy undergo heart surgery.But, citing the earlier error on the part of hospital staff, the couple declined.

“We got the one mistake after another, [and] I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in thehospital where I don’t feel he is safe,” Mrs. Nikolayevtold a local news station.

While the Nikolayevs sought a second opinionfrom other hospitals, police visited their home ontwo occasions, demanding the couple surrendertheir child. Although the first visit endedwith police leaving without incident, the second turned ugly.

“I was pushed against the building, smacked down,” Mr. Nikolayev told California’s local News-10. “I said, ‘Am I being placed under arrest?’ Hesmacked me down onto the ground [and] yelled out, ‘I think I got the keys to the house.’”

Fortunately, the Nikolayevs had had the foresightto put up a video camera to record any encounterwith police. In footage released to localnews outlets, one police officer can be heard telling the couple, “I’m going to grab your baby—and don’t resist and don’t fight me, OK?”

Incidents like this are nothing new and occurring with greater frequency. How did it come tothis? And is there any way to make things right?

PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT SOUGHT

This newspaper recently spoke with MichaelRamey, director of communications and researchfor ParentalRights.org, a political organizationworking to pass a Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The organization represented Michigan parents in a story covered here.

When asked why government agencies are becoming morebrazen in their abuse of family rights,Ramey replied: “Traditionally the Supreme Courthas upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education and care of theirchildren dating back to 1923. But in the year 2000, in a case called Troxel v. Granville, they maintained the language of fundamental parental rightsbut removed the high legal standard the state hasto reach before [they’re] allowed to make the decision for the child. Prior to that case, the legal presumptionwas that parents acted in the bestinterests of their child. And if you were acting on behalf of the state, you needed to establish that theparent is unfit, negligent or abusive before thecourt could make a decision.”

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment thatRamey’s organization is behind seeks to restorethe high legal standard government had to reachprior to Troxel. According to sections I and II of the amendment: “The liberty of parents to directthe upbringing, education and care of their childrenis a fundamental right. . . . Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe this right withoutdemonstrating that its governmental interest as appliedto the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

But Ramey is not just addressing the power ofstates and the federal government.

“We’re also very concerned about the use of internationallaw in American courts,” said Ramey.“There are a couple of UN treaties that are contraryto U.S. sovereignty and our system of governance. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities both establish the legal standard that our nation would be required to hold.The presumption that a parent acts in the best interestsof the child would no longer suffice. The government would be obligated by the treaty tomake sure that every action is made in the best interestsof the child, making them responsible for child-rearing decisions, rather than the parents.”

Ramey said the Rights of People with Disabilitiestreaty went before the Senate in Septemberbut was narrowly defeated.

“If that were to pass, the state would ultimately have the authority to decide on a child’s upbringing,”he said. “Our concern is twofold: Not onlythat the federal government would be making decisions instead of parents, but also because a ratifiedtreaty has been held by the Supreme Court assuperior to any state law. That means the federal government would oversee all of the family rightsand childrearing issues that are currently underthe jurisdiction of the individual states.”

According to Ramey, the proposed ParentalRights Amendment had 140 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives when it went before the 111th Congress. “In the 112th Congress, we didn’t have as many sponsors because it was very late,but we were granted a hearing last summer by theHouse Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution” he said. “We’re hoping to repeat our successin getting a large number of co-sponsors and reallyget it moving forward in the months ahead.”

Keith Johnson in an investigative journalist and host of the Revolt of the Plebs radio program.